There’s been plenty of chatter recently in the liberal media, leading some to believe that control of the U.S. Senate really is in play during the 2018 election.

As a former Republican national committeeman, James keeps up closely with these things. As Nevada’s chief nerd (controller), Ron tends to numbers and policy. So, James wrote the following and Ron knows when to lightly edit his analysis and sign on.

Democrats and their media amen corner think they may control both the House and Senate after the election. We doubt it, especially in the case of the Senate.

It’s easy to see that if – and it’s a big if – a big blue wave rolls in, the House could be back in Democrat hands. Every House seat is up for election, and there are enough swing districts in states like New York, New Jersey and California that could change from the Rs to the Ds.

The Senate, however, is very different. There are 35 seats out of 100 up for election. Of those, only nine are held by Republicans, with 26 held by Democrats or Independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Among the nine seats held by Republicans, there are only three seats really in play. The biggest challenge is right here in Nevada, with incumbent Dean Heller being challenged by Jacky Rosen, who has served less than one congressional term as a back-bencher. Most pollsters, plus Heller’s internal polling, have this race as a tossup.The second biggest challenge is Arizona, where Democrats had one of the best showings in the 2016 presidential race and the incumbent Republican Senator Jeff Flake is retiring. This race will be close, but leans toward Republicans in most national polls.

The last possibility for a Democrat pickup? Tennessee. Although it will be a tall order for a Democrat to win this, it is an open seat with the retirement of Senator Bob Corker, and both Republicans and Democrats will field viable candidates. Most national polls have this state also leaning Republican.

The other six races involving Republican controlled seats? Texas, Nebraska, Wyoming, two in Mississippi, and Utah. There’s no chance the Democrats will win any of these races, despite noise in the liberal media about Beto O’Rourke’s race against Senator Ted Cruz in Texas. Cruz will cruise to victory.

So, if Democrats can win all three currently Republican seats for which they stand a chance and can defend all 26 of their incumbents, they will control the senate.

The chances of that happening? Nearly none.

Why? Because of races with a Democrat incumbent senator in states won by President Trump.

There are competitive races Republicans can win in West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In those states, Democrat efforts and all the soft liberal money will be used on defense more than offense.

The chances that the Democrats can hold onto all of these states in November? None.

Republicans will almost certainly pick up at least three victories in those nine states. The most likely pickups will be North Dakota, Indiana and Missouri, with Montana, Wisconsin and Florida also in play. None of these races rate anything better than a “leans Democrat” in the majority of national polls, and most are rated toss ups.What does this mean?

Even if the Democrats can pick up seats in Nevada, Arizona and Tennessee – a slim chance – the likelihood that they will lose seats in three other races is so high that it will offset the wins and the Republicans will remain in control of the chamber.

What can we do here in Nevada?Heller may be in a tight race, but President Trump and the Republican caucus strongly support him. So, if you support limited government, vote for Heller. Forget about the “Never Trump” noise Heller made prior to the 2016 election. He’s been on board, especially in the past several months, with the key points of the Trump agenda.

In sum, the hope for a blue wave that will put the Senate under Democrat control is one we want Democrats to waste their money and resources trying to achieve. We should let them continue to believe it is possible.

In 2016, we reported that we cut Controller’s office spending by 13 percent from the budget we inherited from the Legislature and Governor based on the request of the previous Controller. So, we were able to return over $1-million to the state treasury in our first 18 months in office to mitigate taxes and fund other state activities – all while expanding and improving our services.

In overall government finance, $1-million is not a lot. However, the Controller’s budget is a very small part of state spending and operations. If all state agencies made a one-time 13 percent cut in their total spending in 18 months, the savings would be $1.065-billion per year.

Our experience shows that significant cuts often can be made without diminishing state services. If all agencies had made only seven percent savings in 2015 and the first half of 2016, Nevada would have been able to completely avoid the largest-ever tax increase (including the Commerce Tax) the Legislature passed and Governor signed in 2015. That increase was $0.6-billion per year.

Further, a group of legislators, professionals and citizens led by Ron proposed an alternative budget during that legislative session that would have increased the growth rate of spending by slightly more than the growth rate of incomes of Nevada families and businesses -- and yet still not required any tax increase at all. In their haste to tax and spend, the Legislature and Governor ignored it and plunged forward with the tax hikes.

Politics is partly about having the will to make tough but necessary choices. Our Legislature and Governor don’t have it. When Ron ran for Controller, he promised openness, transparency and accountability that would have avoided the spending and tax orgy, and we’ve delivered on that.

But public administration and politics are also about taking care of the day-to-day ministerial functions and the nuts-and-bolts back office functions. When Ron ran for Controller, he made just as big a deal about those as the higher profile matters. And the team we’ve had the pleasure to lead the last three-and-a-half years has done a fine job there too. Today we can report a stellar example.

We inherited from the previous Controller a troubled major information technology (IT) project intended to improve the state’s collection of overdue debts, long a serious problem area. The troubles sprang partly from lax administration of the contract for the project but mainly from the fact that the contract, while good in concept, was seriously flawed in its details.

We soon learned the project was seriously behind schedule, relations between the contractor’s staff and ours were rapidly deteriorating, and the system wouldn’t meet the state’s expectations and needs.

Serious schedule, performance and cost problems are all too typical with major IT projects. Here, cost problems were mitigated by the structure of the contract, but if the final product performance issues could not be fixed, the cost problem was almost certain to manifest itself as major costs and delays due to litigation.

We and our whole team worked closely with the Attorney General’s office to avoid litigation if possible, but prepare fully in case it was unavoidable. We also communicated clearly and timely with the contractor that the product performance goals had to be met That included writing a couple of long, detailed letters answering points they raised and making our position and demands unmistakable.

The contractor replaced key members of their team and we made some changes in ours until we had personnel who could communicate effectively and work together toward the joint goal of making the system work right as soon as possible. Our team, the AG’s office and the contractor were all helped at key points by now-retired state budget director Jim Wells.​Ultimately, after two major and difficult contract revisions and a lot of good professional work by many people, the project became operational about a year ago. Recently, we got the numbers from the first year of system operation: Debt collections increased by over $1.25-million from the previous year, or nearly 3.6 times!And it’s not a one-shot deal. Future collections will be much higher than previously expected, too.We hope all agencies can make similar future gains.

Nevadans will vote in coming days on legalizing the recreational use of marijuana here, as four other states have already done.Both advocates and opponents have made strident cases to support their views. However, the two camps cite data that appears to conflict. We have mixed views on this initiative, but we are interested in informational clarity.So, we were delighted recently to read an analysis of the objective trends by Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron and his co-authors. They use recent data from Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska to dispel many myths propagated by both sides.They examine how drug use patterns have changed in states following legalization of marijuana. For data, they rely on the federally funded National Survey on Drug Use and Health. It shows the proportion of respondents who report having used marijuana in the past year has remained basically stable since 2002, at 55 to 60 percent in each state. Although there are few data points since the first legalizations in 2012, there has been no observable increase in use.In their words: “The data do not show dramatic changes in use rates corresponding to either the expansion of medical marijuana or legalization. Similarly, cocaine exhibits a mild downward trend over the time period but shows no obvious change after marijuana policy changes. Alcohol use shows a pattern similar to marijuana: a gradual upward trend but no obvious evidence of a response to marijuana policy.”Miron and company suggest that a long-running trend of increasing exposure to marijuana among the adult population has reduced its stigma and generated the cultural acceptance that leads to legalization in the first place. “In essence,” they say, “rising marijuana use may not be a consequence of legalization, but a cause of it.”They also address the impact of legalization on measures of public health, crime, road safety, educational outcomes, the economy, and state fiscal health.In each area, the claims of proponents and critics are wildly contradictory. Proponents argue that marijuana can treat or prevent many diseases and that legalization will lead to improved public health. Opponents believe marijuana causes depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and other disorders. But the data shows no observable trends in public health following legalization.Critics believe legalization would cause a spike in crime while proponents believe that black markets are the true cause of drug-related crime and that legalization makes everyone safer. But records from the Denver police department show no change in overall crime rates following legalization. In Seattle, crime “has neither soared nor plummeted in the wake of legalization.”A particular concern of critics is that children could face greater exposure to marijuana through a legal and regulated market than a black market. As parents, we’re sensitive to this concern, but Miron’s team finds no discernable changes in teen use or academic performance following legalization.Proponents tell us that legalization would create a whole new industry, boost economic growth, and create a huge source of tax revenues for state and local coffers. These claims are overblown, too. “Data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis show little evidence of significant Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increases after legalization in any state.”In all, Miron and company conclude, “state marijuana legalizations have had minimal effect on marijuana use and related outcomes. We cannot rule out small effects of legalization, and insufficient time has elapsed since the four initial legalizations to allow strong inference. On the basis of available data, however, we find little support for the stronger claims made by either opponents or advocates of legalization.”Ultimately, legalization has many complex, mixed and uncertain effects, and which side the balance favors depends also on people’s values.But the choice also greatly depends on details of an initiative. And initiatives don’t present the pure question as it might be discussed in a Saturday nightcollege dorm bull session. Instead, because major economic interests are involved on both sides, such measures are always freighted with particulars that favor the hidden interests of proponents. And many opponents have hidden special interests too.So, folks should make their own reasoned decisions knowing that many claims they hear from both sides are all huff and puff with no empirical support.Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. Geoffrey Lawrence is Assistant Controller.

In both sports and life, we love great champions.But athletic dominance alone isn't what makes a champion great. Character is what elevates some to the greatness. Humility, integrity, sportsmanship and respect for others are what set some champions apart.That’s why we think more highly of Greg Maddux than Roger Clemens. Maddux was all class all the time, while Clemens was full of ego, aggression and controversy. During their playing days, Maddux was the best pitcher in the National League while Clemens held that status in the American League. Maddux was the first pitcher to win the Cy Young Award for best pitcher in the league in four consecutive seasons, while Clemens amassed seven over the course of his career.Clemens' reputation as an egotist and hothead began long before he was connected to steroid use and serial marital infidelity. He removed himself from Game six of the 1986 World Series complaining of a finger blister, but then took time to shave before the game ended so he'd look good for the celebration photos afterwards. Meanwhile, his team collapsed after he left the game and they wound up losing the Series.In the 2000 World Series, Clemens threw a broken bat at the unassuming (but great) Mike Piazza of the Mets for no apparent reason. This was just months after unapologetically beaning Piazza in the head with a fastball and knocking him unconscious.A different kind of anecdote highlights Maddux's sublime disposition and character. In his final year, Maddux was acquired by the Dodgers to help with their stretch run. When the Dodgers got to the playoffs, the 42-year-old Maddux was moved from the starting rotation to the bullpen – a move widely viewed as a sign of disrespect for his accomplishments. But when asked in a post-game interview if he felt insulted by having to come out of the bullpen, a calm and genuine smile appeared on the legend's face as he quietly replied, "No. It was an honor."Clemens' behavior often gained him a brighter media spotlight. But as time passes, our fondness for Maddux, the mild-mannered man from Las Vegas, continues to grow as Clemens’ rep wanes.Likewise, we see the same distinctions among champions in Geoff's favorite pastime, mixed martial arts.Conor McGregor is the current UFC featherweight champion. While McGregor is extremely talented on his feet, you might get the impression from watching him that he is the only fighter in the UFC. The Irish star doesn't lack for ego, swagger or self-promotion, but Geoff doesn't even consider him in the conversation for best pound-for-pound fighter.To be sure, egotism is a common attribute among many fighters. Oddly to us, though, fighters who fall far short of the elite level are often worst offenders.The ones who stand out most to us and earn our respect are those who show respect to their opponents and quietly display their skill. Three-time heavyweight champ Randy Couture jumps to mind along with current flyweight champ Demetrious Johnson.Geoff considers Johnson to be the best all-around fighter he's ever seen. "Mighty Mouse," as he's called, has mastered almost flawless technique in multiple disciplines, including boxing, wrestling, muay thai and jui jitsu. Johnson's skill isn't just limited to those techniques, however. His transitions from one move or one discipline to the next are smooth and seamless. Combine all that with amazing speed, and "Mighty Mouse" has been unbeatable.Out of his first 10 bouts, all victories, Johnson won seven in the first round. He's still the only fighter ever to hold the flyweight title, which was created in 2012. No challenger has even been competitive. That led the UFC to change this season's format of its reality show, The Ultimate Fighter, into a tournament of flyweight champions from all over the world in hopes of finding a legitimate contender to oppose him.And yet, you wouldn't glean Johnson's unworldly dominance from his demeanor. Instead of self-promotion, Johnson always shows great respect and compliments each of his opponents for what they did well in facing him.Traits like that elevate a champion from memorable to great. And that's a lesson we can apply in life as well as sports.Ron Knecht is Nevada Controller. Geoffrey Lawrence is Assistant Controller.

Millennial Support for Ted Cruz Our country faces a time such as it has never faced before. It is critical that, as we approach the Nevada Caucuses and the 2016 elections, we think critically as to the direction we want our country to go. The United States of America is the greatest country that has ever existed. This is not because of the work of one man or one party, but rather our greatness has found its origin in our principles and in the spirit of the American people. The only way to make America great again is to return to those things that made us great in the first place. We are facing problems on all fronts. We see corruption and dishonesty in the politicians that we send to Washington who promise us that they will stand on principle and then capitulate to the ways of Washington. We see crushing debt with no end in sight. We see radical Islamic terrorism growing faster than we ever imagined it could have and a president who refuses to even acknowledge the problem. We see our liberties drifting off into the pages of history and we are told that they are simply antiquated ideologies. It may seem as though we are fighting a losing battle. However, there is hope. We have before us the opportunity to elect someone who can start the work of correcting the course of our nation. It is critical that we look to someone who has principles and is willing to stand for what they believe is right. I believe that Ted Cruz is that person. Ted Cruz has been a consistent conservative throughout his entire life. As a teenager he traveled across the state of Texas speaking and teaching about the Constitution. He then went on to become the Solicitor General of the State of Texas were he fought to preserve our liberties in front of the Supreme Court. He was willing to stand up for our religious liberties as well as our state and national sovereignty and experienced great success in doing so. While in the United States Senate, Ted Cruz has consistently stood on principle and made good on the promises he made to his constituents; a rare quality. There are many things that we must consider before casting a ballot. We must ask ourselves who has been willing to place their principles over politics, who has been a strident supporter of the Constitution and the things that have made America great, and who do we trust most to choose the direction of our country especially as it relates to nominations to the Supreme Court. I believe that Ted Cruz is the man for the job.As a millennial and a college student, I recognize the fact that I, and my peers, will be the ones who will live with the consequences of the decisions that are made today. Unless we change the direction that we are heading, the consequences may be more than we can handle. That is why I believe, as Ted Cruz does, that we must reignite the promise of America. That is why I will be, and I am asking you, to show up at your caucus location on Tuesday, February 23, and vote for Ted Cruz.